PP please post a link the the SCOTUS ruling you are referring to. I would like to read it as well as the rest in here would like to read it. Because we all know you only post the truth lol

Berryville VA

Username hidden
(1750 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I think there are a few problems in the great gun debate, all of which are interwoven to such an extent that they may be impossible to untie.

Instead of being a social issue that doesn't adhere to any specific party lines, it's been used by both sides of the aisle as a rallying call. This forced polarization is a cynical political ploy, but it's also very effective - and there's no better proof of that than the several trillion gun arguments raging on the internet at any given moment. Second, the gun/ammo manufacturers and retailers have happily used the NRA as their mouthpiece in convincing people that draconian anti-gun measures are mere days away - this leading them to massive boosts in sales and profits in the last month. Finally, you have the long-ignored conspiracy theorist types raising hell about this being the slippery slope to some sort of tyrannical regime throwing us all in camps and then mumblemumblesomethingsomething there's no working class and the world starves to death, I guess. There isn't much logic to be found in that crowd.

There are a lot of facts and statistics and simple common sense, but it's hard to parse them from the emotional outbursts that are rising up thanks to this issue being firmly adhered to people's whole value systems. It's a shame, but it may well be past the point of no return.

I think the key things to remember are: -The people who are for gun control aren't suggesting we ban all gun sales, leave people defenseless, or anything of the sort. -The people who are against gun control aren't inhuman monsters who value guns more than life, and most support things like full background checks, stricter enforcement of laws already on the books, etc. -If someone spouts talking points fed to them by Alex Jones or Glenn Beck, you can safely ignore their contributions to the discussion. -Compromise is a good thing.

If we all do that, agreement can be reached.

Easton PA

Username hidden
(79 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

The problem with the gun debate is that the gun lobby and the NRA cult insists on making it a straw man and a false dichotomy; NO GUN REGULATIONS vs BAN ALL GUNS, as if there are not light years of middle ground in between. I personally know of NO ONE who wants to BAN private ownership of guns, yet THAT is the strawman the gun lobby and NRA set up. Heller v US drew a line, it defended ownership of guns while clearly stating "Adaptive combat weapons" (assault weapons as described by Remington) were not 2nd amendment protected.

Rosemont IL

Username hidden
(3844 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

No racial profiling Oakland officials support Bratton while insisting they adamantly oppose racial profiling. In a Jan. 18 open letter to the City Council, Mayor Jean Quan praised Bratton “as among the best minds in modern policing. His record is clear: as a chief in New York City and Los Angeles, he oversaw record drops in crime that were consistent and sustained. … We’ve been hearing worries that Bratton’s past policies could be used in Oakland in a way that contributes to racial profiling. I want to address those concerns in the clearest words I can find: racial profiling will not be tolerated in the Oakland Police Department. Period.” She noted that Bratton’s tenure as Los Angeles police chief from 2002-09 was so effective the Los Angeles ACLU director called his leaving “a terrible loss,” adding that complaints about the police had dropped from more than 10,000 per year to “a trickle.” Homicides dropped 41 percent and overall serious crime was down 33 percent during his time in Los Angeles, according to Bratton. Oakland Police Chief Howard Jordan, who is black, in his presentation to the council also emphasized his opposition to racial profiling. “I do not support it and won’t condone it,” he said. “We will stop people based on reasonable suspicion.” He also stressed Bratton will only be making recommendations, and that the implementation of policy changes would have to go through him (Jordan) and the mayor.

Tulare CA

Username hidden
(1879 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

As the crowd chanted “F— the police,” the chairman shut down the meeting. She and the brave man received a police escort out of the building. City officials are starting to smarten up about crowd control. Before the Jan. 22 meeting in which the whole council considered Bratton’s contract, several council members sent out emails to supporters suggesting that they arrive early so that the protesters would not take up all of the seats in the council chamber. Many of those seats were instead filled by pastors and church members who support cracking down on crime. Most of the protesters were forced into four overflow rooms to watch the proceedings on TV. But hundreds still spoke, often shouting their opposition to Bratton in a nine-hour meeting that ended after 2 a.m. Stop-and-frisk Their main beef with Bratton is that he champions a policy allowing police to stop, question and, if necessary, frisk someone if there’s a suspicion that he’s engaged in or about to commit a crime. Commonly known as “stop-and-frisk,” the practice has allowed police in New York City, where Bratton pioneered the technique, to become proactive, deterring crime rather than simply responding after the fact. Some supporters say it really should be called “stop-question-and-frisk,” because questioning usually is enough. “Stop-and-frisk is not something that you can stop,” Bratton recently told the Wall Street Journal. “It is an absolutely basic tool of American policing. It would be like asking a doctor to give an examination to you without using his stethoscope.” And it’s been effective. There were more than 2,200 murders in New York City before Bratton took over as top cop in 1994. Two years later, murders had fallen by 39 percent, robbery 31 percent, burglary 25 percent and car theft 36 percent, according to the Journal. The problem, as far as the protesters are concerned, is that black and Latino males are the ones most likely to be stopped and frisked, which they consider racial profiling. What they’re unwilling to acknowledge is that minority males, especially blacks, are more likely to engage in crime than other groups. For example, blacks comprise 23 percent of New York’s population, but they committed 80 percent of the shootings in 2011, according to the Journal. A Manhattan judge, according to BET com, recently ruled that stop-and-frisk is unconstitutional. The judge said, “While it may be difficult to say where, precisely, to draw the line between constitutional and unconstitutional police encounters, such a line exists, and the NYPD has systematically crossed it when making trespass stops.” It’s likely that the issue will eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, where Bratton predicts stop-and-frisk will be upheld.

Tulare CA

Username hidden
(1879 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

I am not sure in which thread and by whom VA was called out as being racist because he pointed out statistics of race and crime. I still maintain it is not race but the real reason is, "welfare and crime". For example the correlation of males in Head Start programs have a 95%+ chance of ending up in prison. Although race is the base factor of the article, I think it is males brought up under the rules of welfare is the true driving force. P.1 of 3) By Dave Roberts Oakland’s website prominently touts that it has been ranked by the New York Times as the fifth best place in the world to visit. It beat out every other North American city as well as Tokyo, Florence and Vienna. The Times praises Oakland’s sophisticated restaurants and upscale bars, which are “turning once-gritty Oakland into an increasingly appealing place to be after dark.” Appealing, perhaps, if you’re a thrill seeker who agrees with Winston Churchill that “there is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result.” Oakland is the most dangerous large city in California and one of the most dangerous large cities in the nation. There were nearly 17 violent crimes per 1,000 Oakland residents in 2011, more than triple the rate in Los Angeles, according to the FBI. Violent crime increased 23 percent last year over 2011. Last year 126 people were murdered in Oakland compared to 103 murders in 2011, according to police. This year could be worse. Four people were shot to death in Oakland in the space of just six hours on Jan. 11. Police officers are finding themselves outmanned and outgunned. Last week two cops were shot in the line of duty, one in the arm and the other in the leg. Budget cuts have reduced the force to about 615 officers from a high of 837 officers in 2008, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. City officials have finally had enough and are determined to fight back. However, they have been forced not only to fight the criminals and gangs, but also a large contingent of their own citizens who fear and hate Oakland police officers more than they do criminals. Leftists and anarchists They are radical leftists and anarchists, many of whom participated in Occupy Oakland, which took over the plaza in front of City Hall in 2011. Since then they have organized numerous demonstrations, shut down the Port of Oakland on several occasions, held sit-ins and disrupted City Council meetings. Their purpose, according to their website, is to “plan actions, mobilize real resistance, and defend ourselves from the economic and physical war that is being waged against our communities.” They are frequently joined by their comrades from Critical Resistance. The latest battles have been waged over city officials’ plan to hire former New York and Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton as a consultant, advising Oakland police on how to get a handle on crime, despite limited resources. When the $250,000 contract came before the council’s Public Safety Committee on Jan. 15, activists did their best to replace democracy with mobocracy. Hundreds protested at a rally in front of City Hall before the meeting, then packed the council chambers where a councilman “struggled to hold back the crowd, who hissed, meowed, shouted and heckled city officials and supporters of Bratton,” according to the Chronicle. Only the brave have dared to go against the mob. Such as the man who spoke at another rowdy Public Safety Committee meeting last year, saying, “It’s not fair to the public to have this kind of unruly behavior, which really borders on terrorism actually.” That sent the crowd into a frenzy and one guy got in his face and threatened, “Get your ass out of here. You can’t talk. You’re not going to make it home.”

Tulare CA

Username hidden
(1879 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Twenty Five Forums on guns on the wall, Twenty Five Forums on guns, Take one down, and pass it around, Twenty Six Forums on guns on the wall...

Username hidden
(2984 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Bobby sez

"1) National mental health care so to identify mentally disabled or dangerous people and to study the many mental health issues which have lead our nation to the problems we now face."

Start with mental medical discharge(kicked out) soldiers. Include those that claim to have been a soldier but never were. Add to that delusional libtards that talk daily of killing citizens.

"2) Mandatory screening for all who desire a projectile weapon and permits for any forearm with a renewal of the permit every 3-5 years requiring another metal fitness test."

People need a permit for a "forearm"?

"3) Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen weapons within 24 hours of theft and parents of kids who aquire thei parents fire arms to share their child's punishment for the illegal use of fire arms."

Just lock up nut cases permanently, starting with ones who can't support themselves, can't spell, and play video games all day.

"This who want to argue abou this can look at most mental wards... Most do not have armed guards in the halls, where the mentally ill can rush them and take their weapons. Those tending to their own mentally ill ought not provide easy access to their fire arms by storing them in the same home as the mentally ill."

Just lock up the libtard nut cases would be much easier.

"As you can see, most everything I want deals with fixing the mind or keeping weapons from the meantilly ill. Not banning tools. I don't care if you have a cannon for home defense, only that it not damage or endanger my home/family if you use it."

I don't think any "meantilly ill" exist. Though there are some libtards that should be thrown in a dark cell and left there to rot.

Sanford NC

Username hidden
(19580 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

If anyone were bothered to look up my post on this issue, they would know that I am against bans on weapons and or reduced maginizine caps.

As a list of what to do?

1) National mental health care so to identify mentally disabled or dangerous people and to study the many mental health issues which have lead our nation to the problems we now face.

2) Mandatory screening for all who desire a projectile weapon and permits for any forearm with a renewal of the permit every 3-5 years requiring another metal fitness test.

3) Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen weapons within 24 hours of theft and parents of kids who aquire thei parents fire arms to share their child's punishment for the illegal use of fire arms.

4) families with mentally disabled or dangerous person living in the home must have their weapons stored in another location such as an armory (police/national guard) so to prevent cases like sandyhook.

This who want to argue abou this can look at most mental wards... Most do not have armed guards in the halls, where the mentally ill can rush them and take their weapons. Those tending to their own mentally ill ought not provide easy access to their fire arms by storing them in the same home as the mentally ill.

As you can see, most everything I want deals with fixing the mind or keeping weapons from the meantilly ill. Not banning tools. I don't care if you have a cannon for home defense, only that it not damage or endanger my home/family if you use it.

Hazle Township PA

Username hidden
(8416 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Has anyone been persuaded to take a view that he or she had not previously?

Has anyone said that both sides of the gun debate not only hold passionate views, but quite legitimate ones?

Heller was decided 5-4. It is a close call. I doubt the nine Justices call each other "tard" or "idiots."

This site does not contain sexually explicit images as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2256.
Accordingly, neither this site nor the contents contained herein are covered by the record-keeping provisions of 18 USC 2257(a)-(c).
Disclaimer: This website contains adult material. You must be over 18 to enter or 21 where applicable by law.All Members are over 18 years of age.Terms of Use|Privacy Policy